**LOTTA CAPSTYPINGS***
Happy Saturday!
Just to be clear, you seem to be stating that a future where transaction fees being $100, $1000 or even more per on-chain tx is a distinct possibility?
That as a possibility is implicit in my thoughts, I'd say, yes.
Well, which of those orders of magnitude do you think is a possibility? $100? $1000? Unbounded “even more”? And what are the implications?
What you are missing in this discussion is a sense of proportion of future feerates—and of the real-world practical implications of what various persons are saying. Don’t get caught up in the minutae: Look at the big picture.
rolling explicitly alleged that in the future, ordinary people will be
completely priced out of on-chain transactions. That is bog standard bigblocker nonsense, except with the twist that rolling
relishes his fantasy of the blockchain being only the for the “big boys”. Quote-unquote. His words.
On-chain will be for the big boys.
jbreher probably agrees with rolling,
except for the relished fantasy part. Of course, his solution will be to increase the blocksize to the point that ordinary people cannot run nodes. He is on record as alleging that non-mining validators are useless, anyway.
For example; boldface is his:You are delusional. I have demonstrated over and over again that the count of non-mining validators is a powerless metric in regards to Bitcoin consensus.
[...]
A count of non-mining validators has fuck-all to do with a measure of the economic majority.
Thus arises a false dichotomy and thereupon, false synthesis:- Thesis, rolling, explicit and admitted: Only “big boys” will be able to pay fees to transact on-chain.
- Antithesis, jbreher, implicit and evaded: Only “big boys” will be able to run nodes.
- Synthesis: Bitcoin under total control. Big banker sigh of relief.
For my part, I think that most transactions
will and should be off-chain. It is ridiculously inefficient and horrible for privacy to keep a permanent record of
every financial transaction in the world replicated on every node. From a technical standpoint, the POW Nakamoto Consensus blockchain is actually the worst database ever invented—
except if you need Byzantine fault-tolerant distributed consensus in a hostile network environment, with no central authority. It should be used thus as a global synchronizer and enforcer for trustless,
permissionless off-chain protocols.
An absolute prerequisite for that last: On-chain transactions
must remain accessible to ordinary people. They may become moderately expensive, but not
prohibitively expensive as rolling has proclaimed. rolling sees the blockchain as a bank and billionaire settlement layer, not a “Be Your Own Bank” settlement layer.
A frequently made analogy, which I think is apt, is that the blockchain of the future will be the “wire transfer” mechanism for Your Own Bank.
This needs to be highlighted:
My argument is people are idiots and the few who aren't will be priced out of the market by high fees.
Your argument is pie in the sky nonsense in regards to a fear of a future of bitcoin evolving in a way that squeezes out the little guy...
You have hardly any evidence of that beyond pure speculation, and
why the fuck do you believe that bitcoin had adopted segregated witness rather than increasing the block limit size? That is in order that
little normie people can run nodes.. .Have you heard about that kind of inclusiveness phenomena that puts power of the chain in the hands of the people through consensus mechanisms?
Speaking as someone who has painful real-world experience running Bitcoin on ancient, underpowered hardware,
thank you.I was thinking it, but you said it.
Anybody who does not understand this should try, just
try running Bitcoin and syncing mainnet on old and/or very cheap hardware. You will soon wish for
smaller blocks. If you have a bit of vision, thereupon contemplate network effects and the resistance to centralization brought by keeping full nodes within the reach of people who are not rich.
Poll
